Nick Rekieta's Weeb Wars videos & livestreams - MULTIPLE SLURS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nontransferable said:
The live streams are being unlisted after they are over and put in a playlist. Nick is doing this because 3-5 hour live streams are not conductive to the growth of his channel. Casual viewers are more receptive to short clips.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I hate this whole unlisted thing, though. Personally wish he'd have made or had someone else make a separate channel for clips and highlights.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: feral cat #6385
MagicalHopStep said:
Thanks. I hate this whole unlisted thing, though. Personally wish he'd have made or had someone else make a separate channel for clips and highlights.
Click to expand...

Kind of like what Steven Crowder does.
He has his main channel, but he also has a channel that consists of clips and skits from LwC.
 
So, I can now break my silence on something

A few months back I got a bunch of shit for "teasing" and "blue-balling" you all about something (you can find the post here). I got a lot of shit and, quite frankly, the raging in DMs was pretty funny I have to admit. I promised Nick at the time that under no circumstances would I leak this information but I can now, since today is the day, bois, that the appeals panel convenes for this shit.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure, any swinging dick can submit an amicus brief in support of one (or more) of the parties. The court is obligated ot receieve it but not obligated to give a good Goddamn motherfuck about it. Nick said he was considering writing one, but he wanted it kept on the DL until it was too late for Lawtwitter to submit one for the defendants. I apologize for nothing on this.

BUT IT'S DONE BOIS!

1600784470528.png
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Jimmy J. Weems, ConSluttant and 24 others
Spectre_06 said:
So, I can now break my silence on something

A few months back I got a bunch of shit for "teasing" and "blue-balling" you all about something (you can find the post here). I got a lot of shit and, quite frankly, the raging in DMs was pretty funny I have to admit. I promised Nick at the time that under no circumstances would I leak this information but I can now, since today is the day, bois, that the appeals panel convenes for this shit.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure, any swinging dick can submit an amicus brief in support of one (or more) of the parties. The court is obligated ot receieve it but not obligated to give a good Goddamn motherfuck about it. Nick said he was considering writing one, but he wanted it kept on the DL until it was too late for Lawtwitter to submit one for the defendants. I apologize for nothing on this.

BUT IT'S DONE BOIS!

View attachment 1613550
Click to expand...
Ok confused here. Is this a good thing or bad thing?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hooligan Handgun, Seraphic_Vishnal, Drowningman and 2 others
Spectre_06 said:
So, I can now break my silence on something

A few months back I got a bunch of shit for "teasing" and "blue-balling" you all about something (you can find the post here). I got a lot of shit and, quite frankly, the raging in DMs was pretty funny I have to admit. I promised Nick at the time that under no circumstances would I leak this information but I can now, since today is the day, bois, that the appeals panel convenes for this shit.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure, any swinging dick can submit an amicus brief in support of one (or more) of the parties. The court is obligated ot receieve it but not obligated to give a good Goddamn motherfuck about it. Nick said he was considering writing one, but he wanted it kept on the DL until it was too late for Lawtwitter to submit one for the defendants. I apologize for nothing on this.

BUT IT'S DONE BOIS!

View attachment 1613550
Click to expand...
Are you gonna at least dump the doc you clout chasing fuck?
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Wedge, GenericReviewerDraco, P5Fever and 2 others
Son of Sparda 84 said:
Ok confused here. Is this a good thing or bad thing?
Click to expand...

Can't really say. Nick wasn't convinced they'd accept it to begin with, even if he'd filed it on time. He always referred to it as a "symbolic gesture". Filing it today means it's almost 100% guaranteed not to be considered at all. That being said, he wanted to do it to show solidarity with Vic, and to cause some Lawtwitter spergery because they didn't do it to show how much they actually give a shit about the Defendants (because, you know, if they had actually cared they probably would have filed all those amicus briefs following TRAP Rule 11, but that would have meant taking time out of their busy days sperging on Twitter to do something actually useful).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, GenericReviewerDraco and P5Fever
Spectre_06 said:
So, I can now break my silence on something

A few months back I got a bunch of shit for "teasing" and "blue-balling" you all about something (you can find the post here). I got a lot of shit and, quite frankly, the raging in DMs was pretty funny I have to admit. I promised Nick at the time that under no circumstances would I leak this information but I can now, since today is the day, bois, that the appeals panel convenes for this shit.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure, any swinging dick can submit an amicus brief in support of one (or more) of the parties. The court is obligated ot receieve it but not obligated to give a good Goddamn motherfuck about it. Nick said he was considering writing one, but he wanted it kept on the DL until it was too late for Lawtwitter to submit one for the defendants. I apologize for nothing on this.

BUT IT'S DONE BOIS!

View attachment 1613550
Click to expand...

You didn't have the full document?
 
Francis York Morgan said:
Discussing Ron's spergfest when he learns about this will more than cover his hourly rate.
Click to expand...

I mean, you're not wrong...

Also keep in mind that Nick has made it clear the money he makes from YouTube more than covers his hourly rate to take on clients who may not be able to afford private representation for cases. His success on that front aside, I'd assume this is something similar, but also he can make more money grifting us telling us about what he filed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant and P5Fever
Son of Sparda 84 said:
Ok confused here. Is this a good thing or bad thing?
Click to expand...
Amicus Curae is roughly "friend of the court". More or less, an amicus brief is when an uninvolved party submits a legal opinion to help the court in ruling on the case. This is the closest Nick can get to being "Vic's lawyer."

The court can reject it, though, which is probably going to happen here.

The salt from KV will be a hoot though.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, Rondo Richter Belmont, Wedge and 10 others
It's a meaningless t-pose, but the sour grapes from lawtwits about how 'we ALL knew about that we're just too SMART and CONFIDENT to say anything!' will be mildly amusing.

And like I said elsewhere, if by some stroke of luck they do end up considering it and weigh it favorably toward Vic's success, that'll dig the knife in deeper. (I expect any SCOTX appeal will get flooded with amicus curae briefs if that's allowed on that level despite their tough talk now)
 
  • Feels
Reactions: ConSluttant, Riku, Rondo Richter Belmont and 6 others
Spectre_06 said:
So, I can now break my silence on something

A few months back I got a bunch of shit for "teasing" and "blue-balling" you all about something (you can find the post here). I got a lot of shit and, quite frankly, the raging in DMs was pretty funny I have to admit. I promised Nick at the time that under no circumstances would I leak this information but I can now, since today is the day, bois, that the appeals panel convenes for this shit.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure, any swinging dick can submit an amicus brief in support of one (or more) of the parties. The court is obligated ot receieve it but not obligated to give a good Goddamn motherfuck about it. Nick said he was considering writing one, but he wanted it kept on the DL until it was too late for Lawtwitter to submit one for the defendants. I apologize for nothing on this.

BUT IT'S DONE BOIS!

View attachment 1613550
Click to expand...

So even though it may not be considered by the court to swing any favors, and Nick knew this, he still constructed a giant middle finger to ship to the court as a sign to tell LawTwitter to put up or shut up if they claim to be supporting the defendants. Doesn't sound like a brilliant legal move or anything special (just a way for him to flex his profession), but we've been in a lull and needed some entertainment. Thanks, Nick!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, Riku, Rondo Richter Belmont and 5 others
Despite the obvious luls and jabs nick probably hid in the brief entertainment - this move feels more like either Nick doesnt want people to find out he actually could have done more and didnt after the fact. OR its like hes setting himself up to look like the star player of a losing team. "I dont know why the team lost. Ask the team. I didnt drop the ball, I didnt do the bad thing" etc. etc. In fact, I just read that in his voice and it fits.

In all honesty if he had confidence in Beard this would seem beyond him.
 
  • Disagree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: SeniorFuckFace, theworstkindofeurofag, ConSluttant and 11 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back